Arioch wrote:

SirDamnALot wrote:It probably is still a race for the biggest hull.

I agree that we need to do more to give smaller hulls more utility. I think making them harder to hit might be part of the answer.

The to-hit advantage of small ships VS big ships must be substantial to be noticeable. MoO did have a evasion bonus/penalty for hull sizes, but in the grand scheme of things it was insignificant (I think the smallest one got +25 on evasion, the first targeting computer got you +50 to-hit...)
A flatout bonus would also make small vs small fights miss-fests. So maybe something around the relative difference in size?

Another side is, fielding a suitable force of small "escort/specialised" ships, would clutter up the tactical map.
Even with multi select, you have to give orders to many ships.
Thats where the idea comes from to "stack" smaller ships to squadrons/wings/formations/<cool name>
(e.g. up to 3-5 ships, depending on size and tech. Fluff explanation: They manouver extremly close together, a feat that must be enabled through tech).

To keep it easy, a squadron would consists of identical ships and have the same (or on size bigger) footprint on the tacitcal map,
but keep their smaller ship evasion bonus. Which falls flat against other small ships, so no doomstacks against small-to-little-bigger ships.
They would move and fire as one, reducing the amount of player input.
Getting shot at would hit the lead ship until destroyed, then the next would take over.
This would also waste the mega-über-death-rays of the battleships and bigger, because the overkill would evaporate with the exploding lead ship.
Another small plus for the underdogs.
Combine that with the "big=hard time hitting small" and you could keep your small-to-medium ships from early-mid game
as a fighting force that still has some punch and survivalbility. (Survivalbility is the economic reason to go big in ship desin)

TL:DR: Instead of one cuiser, lets combine 3 destroyers.
Pro: hard to hit.
Con: chipping away at it's firepower and hitpoints when members of the collective gets destroyed.

You can already select groups of ships and give commands as a group. Hold Shift to bandbox select.

Arioch wrote:You can already select groups of ships and give commands as a group. Hold Shift to bandbox select.

I know, and thats a good way to keep big fleets on the move =)

But my idea would also tidy up the battlefield somewhat. Unlike in ground battles, area denial is in space not a top important task.
In space there is no terrain and you can easily bypass enemy ships. You only have to endure the close in fire, but are not physically hindered from moving past them. So having the ability to displace vast stretches of the battlefield with your ships is only marginally usefull.

On that thought , "terrain" features, like the random asteroid/debris patches like in MoO1, would be interesting

SirDamnALot wrote:But my idea would also tidy up the battlefield somewhat. Unlike in ground battles, area denial is in space not a top important task.
In space there is no terrain and you can easily bypass enemy ships.

Except that in the SiS combat model, ships do take up space and you can't just bypass enemy ships. Merging ships doesn't really fit into the model.

If I were designing a new tactical combat system from the ground up, I think I would probably make organizing fleets into sub-groups a core part of the system. But in the SiS tactical model where ships do take up space and turning is an issue, I think merging multiple ships would be problematic on two levels. The first is just in management of the sub-groups; there would have to be a new UI for this. The second would be in how a sub-group maneuvers on the tactical field. If it maneuvers as a collection of individual ships, then it's not different from the bandbox selection. If it maneuvers as a single, smaller ship, then that kind of breaks the display model, and it kind of breaks the maneuvering model. A squadron unit that takes up less space than the equivalent individual ships would have a significant maneuvering advantage in our tactical model, and you could pack ships in more densely and achieve a local firepower advantage.

SirDamnALot wrote:On that thought , "terrain" features, like the random asteroid/debris patches like in MoO1, would be interesting

I would definitely like to have elements that require more maneuver in space combat, but here we run into plausibility issues. Sid Meier's Starships just placed an asteroid field around every planet, which I think made things tactically interesting... but unfortunately real planets don't have asteroids around them (unless they're newly formed), and if they did they would be uninhabitable because of constant meteor impacts. It's true that fun should outweigh realism, but I have trouble swallowing that one.

It's something we're still brainstorming about.

Arioch wrote:Except that in the SiS combat model, ships do take up space and you can't just bypass enemy ships. Merging ships doesn't really fit into the model.

Sorry, my bad then, I thought I saw ships passing over each other. But then that was probably a ship moving though the green "selection" rectangle, which is not really the grid displacment. I need more combat experience

Edit:
I had a scrap with the Phidi tonight, they fielded 33! Destroyers and 4 cruisers.
They seemed happy to live on their on planet, never expand, just make more destroyers
Lessons learned:
- I could pass through/over enemy formations. Yes, the ships occupy space, but they don't block you from passing.
- It took the AI quite some time to move his fleet, because of the animation of turning, moving, etc.
Maybe make a "very fast animations" option ?
- The whole enemy Fleet was at beginner tech level (lasers, nuclear, titanium) and while their missile volleys hurt for a short time, they crumbled before a fleet of a handfull of ion heavy cruisers and smaller ships. The "fusion age" is really a stepup in power

Arioch wrote: The second would be in how a sub-group maneuvers on the tactical field. If it maneuvers as a collection of individual ships, then it's not different from the bandbox selection. If it maneuvers as a single, smaller ship, then that kind of breaks the display model, and it kind of breaks the maneuvering model. A squadron unit that takes up less space than the equivalent individual ships would have a significant maneuvering advantage in our tactical model, and you could pack ships in more densely and achieve a local firepower advantage.

Combining the firepower would be the point, to keep smaller hulls longer relevant in the armsrace. They will get obsolete, but that moment would be pushed a litte back. But I agree absolutely, this would need infrastructure in the GUI, foundation work in the engine and, on top of it all, a carefull balancing. Plus at least two fistfull of edge cases and problems, we did not even thought about
Totally a pipe dream for now, but I like to bounce of ideas

Arioch wrote:

SirDamnALot wrote:On that thought , "terrain" features, like the random asteroid/debris patches like in MoO1, would be interesting

I would definitely like to have elements that require more maneuver in space combat, but here we run into plausibility issues. Sid Meier's Starships just placed an asteroid field around every planet, which I think made things tactically interesting... but unfortunately real planets don't have asteroids around them (unless they're newly formed), and if they did they would be uninhabitable because of constant meteor impacts. It's true that fun should outweigh realism, but I have trouble swallowing that one.

It's something we're still brainstorming about.

Yeah, asteroid thickets, aren't You need to go really out of your way the actually hit one. (NASA is kinda proud of doing so recently )
But since the whole galaxy is the battlefield of a previous galactic war, we could have lots of debris, burnt hull fragments, old spacestations (the one you start with is certainly not the first try) etc to fill out space. (Astronomically still a stretch, but space garbage is a thing in earth's orbit)